Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 80

mverta, I'm also unsure if that shadow was intentional. Before you pointed it out, I never noticed it. Now, I think I notice similar offsets on the sequels (though I can't tell if those are just video chroma shift or color bleeding or highlight ghosting or some other artifact of old video transfers...)

Empire's offset seems to "compress" closer to the main text layer as it gets closer to the middle (possibly caused by anamorphic lens distortion? I know that you can see a pronounced fish-eye effect to the main text layer...). If I futz with the saturation, gamma, etc. on the GOUT, I can see that the "shadow" on the left edge is clearly offset to the right, and on the right, it's offset to the left. On the GOUT, the text on the edges (especially on frame right) have this blobby blue glow/shadow/offset thing, but in the middle, there's almost none. But due to the blurring and diffusion problems with the credits in the GOUT transfers, I don't know how accurate they are.

I just watched that Greedo BD shot. I think the subtitles move way too much. It's more of a distraction and you notice the subtitles instead of the scene.

I honestly don't see why they need to move. You use the BD shots (or other sources) to have the best quality, clean shots. So your work is like a restoration. In a restoration you would also fix any subtitle problems.

So to have them added intentionally, is no restoration and if you are not doing a restoration, you should not use the clean BD or HDTV sources. Why not add grain and scratches and hairs?

Are we sure we want to go that far, adding FAKE grain and dirt and stuff?

It is Harmys project, and I say go for it, now this is really sounding very interesting, I hope you decide to do that Harmy, you have my attention now.

Did they add grain to the bd's especially to the SE bits?

J

Oh man, I really don't want to see any artificial hairs or dirt in the image of "Star Wars". That is just going way too far in my opinion and would cause me to lose all interest in this otherwise fantastic project. Adding artificial elements such as this is dangerously close to Adywan territory in my opinion, and I'm not fan of his editorial decisions. 

I don't want to go back over the subs shake thing again (I stand by all the statements I made previously), but in a true restoration using film elements, you are trying to bring out the original version intended by the filmmakers. In your case, you want to replicate what it looked it originally, but in its best presentation possible. No professional restoration job would actually add elements such as dirt and hairs though, that's the opposite of preserving the best possible image. You want to go for how the film looked in a theater on opening day, not how it looked three months after it's initial release after the print had been played endlessly. The only times I see hairs and dirt tossed into a film artificially are for films like "Grindhouse" where they are going for a distinctly dated retro look in a campy sort of way. I don't think "Star Wars" should be treated like that.

If you do decide on fake dirt and hair, etc.. I hope you would at least consider a version that doesn't include those elements. As for the grain, I think the fine grain level is perfect as it is. These transfers thankfully preserved a fair amount. 

Not to sound harsh or anything but, you always have the previous version to fall back on, and also, you could make your own, any of us that make these projects are well aware that we will not please everyone, and most of us are pretty content with that, it is just the nature of the beast.

I have to say Harmy, I love this approach, go for it man!

OK, I get it now; you must do what you feel is right, of course...

No professional restoration job would actually add elements such as dirt and hairs though, that's the opposite of preserving the best possible image.

Or shaky subtitles. I agree.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Adding hairs/dirt/specks of dust/etc. would be insanity. Dirt and hair is not inherent to the composition of film - it's a byproduct of poor projection and dirty reels. Are you trying to recreate the film as it originally existed under ideal conditions or the film as it would've been projected in the worst case scenario in some random shitty cinema? If it's the latter there are a billion different ways it could've appeared. Why not make it purposely out of focus at times? Many theaters had poor focus and even worse projectionists.

Grain is inherent to film but other anomalies specific to certain individual reels and theaters are not.

Also, adding in artificial grain is silly. By removing the original grain a certain amount of fine detail was forever lost, by adding in artificial grain you're further obscuring what fine detail remains. You can never restore the natural grain that was wiped by away DNR, it's best to work with what grain structure remains and not try to make a bad situation worse than it already is. By adding in grain you're making a decision based on how you feel you'd like it to appear, not how you're certain it once appeared given the evidence at hand. You can never restore the original grain structure, you have no idea how it would appear or how finely it would've been resolved had the movie been mastered properly. 

 

Sign me up as one of the people who would prefer a version without all these artificial "enhancements" added into the presentation - if that counts for anything.

It's weird when Stinky makes this much sense...but it happens from time to time.  I'm in full agreement.

dark_jedi said:

Not to sound harsh or anything but, you always have the previous version to fall back on, and also, you could make your own, any of us that make these projects are well aware that we will not please everyone, and most of us are pretty content with that, it is just the nature of the beast.

Should have added that I agree with this too.  If Harmy goes that route, I'll just stick with the previous version, which is plenty good in my book.